[Organised Debate With Z]

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='14 October 2009 - 06:42 AM' timestamp='1255516934' post='44643']
It has a number of layers really. For eample it either (as you said) can be used to demonstrate a false finding. Or, and this is what I like about it, it can be used to demonstrate that actually if you want to, you can accurately support any argument you like with quantity whether its valid or not - and for humans, quantity arguments appear to be very persuasive. [/quote]
The fact that the scientific method can neither falsify one claim nor validate another makes it false. It's broken. The only difference is that I've abandoned it and seek truth elsewhere while you exploit its flaws. If a method can be used to prove any truth...then the method itself is broken and useless. Again, I'm speaking solely within the context of absolute truths. Obviously science has very practical uses, but in this realm pure logic is far more robust. You can't use science to prove sense perception is objective, pretty much rendering it entirely useless for discussing anything abstract or that isn't empirical.

[quote]The point is, you assume it is a false finding because you already believe objects have no consciousness, but if I am to claim objects in effect do, and if I fancied also claiming that in some sense they use us for their evolution, I can also use this quantity argument as support. The scientific findings for the evolution of man and the evolution of the cup are just as good as one another in terms of evidence to show things evolving- whether it be a consciousness we understand, or not.[/quote]
I assume it is false because you can't logically support that it isn't. You would have to disprove human consciousness in order to support this object consciousness, and it's not something that you're capable of doing. You would have a difficult enough time proving to me that YOUR consciousness exists...let alone that mine does not.

[quote]Take for example when atoms form molecules, they swap electrons and somehow the electon knows exactly where it is supposed to go without any outside influence.[/quote]
A few courses in chemistry, physics, and/or quantum mechanics would show that this isn't so random an event. All things are certainly acted on by outside forces, namely the electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces. Gravitational force is in there too, but the others are more relevant to chemical bonds.

[quote]Or take for example how sometimes you meet someone and you have an instant dislike for them or you go to a location and you feel at home even though you have never been there. Or what about that tennis racket that always won your games ever since you picked it up, it just seems to meld with you for some reason. Those sorts of energy fields could be considered a raw form of consciousness.[/quote]
More likely they are a psychosomatic response taking place in human consciousness. Wouldn't everyone share your feelings about the location or tennis racket if they didn't originate within your consciousness?

[quote]The example of Jits and every original building block having a piece of consciousness-ness could be another way to look at it. How do you look at consciousness?[/quote]
My definition of consciousness is purely spiritual.

[quote]You ask why iron would want to be made into a sword when it could be made into a cannon which is far superior...well...i'm not saying all Jits are smart ones, just that they are conscious. Why do some humans work as shop clerks when they could be pop stars or astronaughts which theoretically is a far superior job. Maybe some just like being shop clerks, there are lots of reasons for that one. I've already given you evidence for object evolution, it isn't biological, but that's the point. [/quote]
There are other factors at work that would need to be explained and logically supported. Economic forces dictate how many of what objects are created. Also, they are discarded and left to sit in a garage or an attic unused until my conscious will decides to once again employ them...or throw them away. At which point the objects will be melted down and created into others or come to rest in a landfill. In addition, culture and historical circumstances are manifested in the arts. Why would stone or any other object desire to be created in the likeness of Aphrodite or George Washington? The list continues until every facet of human civilization has been discussed.

I've argued against logical devices similar to what we're discussing here in theological contexts. Russel's Teapot, invisible pink unicorns, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster all suffer from a similar flaw. Semantics. The trouble with those devices is that they only become or remain logically viable as they are attributed more and more traits of the Abrahamic God (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.). In the same manner, your Jits can only become viable as they acquire traits and circumstances of human consciousness. Eventually you will come to the point that we are discussing the same thing and merely calling it a different name, and your argument becomes one of semantics and lacking any real substance.

[quote]All the elements have already existed on earth and have constantly shifted, evolved and changed forms. For the most part, human hands just add to it. [/quote]
Human hands necessitate it and facilitate it. Nothing changed forms before human arrival, and the elements were finished "evolving" long before they settled on the Earth.

[quote]Not to get too off topic...but I will...that's a very dangerous statement isn't it? Claiming an objective reality and fact. How do you know the earth is round?
[/quote]
I don't see why objectivism is necessarily dangerous. I consider skepticism to be far more concerning than the thought that what is is. However, skepticism is far more logically viable although entirely impractical.

[Organised Debate With Z]

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='13 October 2009 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1255463165' post='44589']
I am not a materialst. However...as you obviously adhere to it, I will use it.[/quote]
I'm not either, but enjoy playing devil's advocate at times. I consider myself to be a Christian, so I believe that we are more than the sum of our parts.

[quote]The false history you speak of is just that in the example, it is used to demonstrate our own theoretically false historical findings - does that make sense? It is designed to show the problem with making assumptions from findings.[/quote]
Absolutely. I know the limitations of science very well. I typically employ the exact thing you're discussing in apologetic arguments, but I still don't understand how it really applies to your assertion about objects.

[quote]We believe we are the clever ones, that we went from a mug to a kettle, that it was our choice based on our need and our want. We take ockams razor and our arrogance and say, the kettle thrives because it is useful for us and we created it for us to use. What I'm saying is, there are lots of other ways to look at it, ways that make us the tricked fools of the picture and not the clever tool makers, or at the very least its a symbiotic relationship. If we consider the more complex someting is (and by that i mean the difference between a rock and a mug) the more things it gets to do, if Jits are in all things then would it not be feasible for the rock to want to be a mug? or something else.[/quote]
It's certainly interesting to consider, but you'd have a hard time actually arguing this, let alone proving it, logically. Consider this: life has existed on this planet for millions of years previous to human existence. Why have their been no "objects" constructed until our arrival? You'd also run into a host of logical problems in giving objects consciousness, as objects don't really "evolve". Iron is iron no matter what you fashion it into, so why would some iron desire to be made into a sword and others made into a cannon which is far superior? Basically all of the elements have always existed on Earth, and they do so unchanged expect by human hands...for the most part.

[quote]When does a table become a chair?[/quote]
You're mixing semantics with identity. A table becomes a chair when you break it apart and fashion into a device for sitting. Even if you're employing it as a chair in the immediate, anyone else will view it as a table. However, it's still human perception that defines the objects and their uses.


[quote name='Kafuuka' date='13 October 2009 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1255464198' post='44591']
Which is the point. The difference between a gene (an object) and a human is made fuzzy.
Personally I like the related topic of vagueness and the example:
a small number + 1 is still a small number
1 is a small number -> 1 + 1 is a small number
induction -> every positive integer is a small number[/quote]
You're trying to quantify something using a relative term. You can't use "small" to define something because "small" has no definite. You could use smaller or larger. 1+1 is greater than 1 is an objective statement even if you reject the definition of 1.

[quote]Somewhere along the way induction failed. We can't say where, but 1 billion is usually not considered a small number. Also in biology the term emergence is often used: phenomena that occur when looking at the large picture but cannot be explained while looking only at the parts. All of these concepts contribute to doubting the difference between humans and objects.[/quote]
1 billion certainly is a small number on an infinite scale. Again, the term small is subjective. If you limit yourself to such a small data set, anything can be perceived out of it, but that will do nothing to change the objective reality. If you stand still and look toward the horizon, you may believe that the Earth is flat...that doesn't change the fact that the Earth is indeed round. If you begin walking, or otherwise expand your data set by making other observations, the truth will be known to you.

[quote]Intelligence has many guises. eg Look at parasites. They have a very complex way of life, doing amazing things, like changing the color of an ant from black to bright red, so that birds will be more prone to spot and eat them. Thus ingesting the parasite and spreading it's offspring. That is a very intelligent scheme. However, it is not the parasite that thinks 'hej, what if I make my ant host change color so birds can see her better?'. So is it necessary for an object to think?
Furthermore, at some point in evolution consciousness and thought must have started. It might be extremely unlikely such an event happens again, but it is possible.
[/quote]
I'm not an expert (in anything really) in evolution, but I don't believe you can isolate a single event and attribute consciousness to it like that. The argument you're making is anthropic in a way.

[Organised Debate With Z]

[quote name='Kafuuka' date='13 October 2009 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1255461355' post='44587']
As for objects using us literally, it is difficult to imagine. Something that startled me when I first heard it was the idea that genes are not the way we create offspring, but humans are an interesting way for genes to multiply themselves.[/quote]
If you break humans down, we are nothing but cells/genes/atoms/quarks anyway, so the concept of identity becomes muddied if you really want to be literal. Your analogy may be correct that genes merely use us to multiply themselves, but in a way both entities are synonymous. It reminds me of a common philosophical quandary called the Ship of Theseus [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus"]linky[/url].

[quote]In a similar fashion, we use cars to drive around, yet you could think cars use us to get build. We all know humans were there before cars were invented and thus reject the idea. But then again, where do humans come from? And what about drugs and memes?[/quote]
The problem is that you're attributing intelligence or even instinctual behavior to items that possess none. Also, social evolution such as memes ties back in to my original post about ideological paradigms. Their progressions are brought about by our thoughts and actions within culture or through discoveries and innovations. They are all necessitated by human consciousness.

[quote]@Malaikat Maut: I do not consider it unfortunate that neuroscience hasn't been able to declare consciousness is nothing but electrochemical.
[/quote]
I was lamenting that it has, or will sometime in the near future.

[Organised Debate With Z]

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='13 October 2009 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1255456164' post='44579']
To say that is to assume a materialist basis for consciousness, however if you are willing to consider other viable possibilities I would argue we are perhaps just slaves to the objects of the world - not the other way around.

I have been meaning to stick this file here for ages, see attached the debate/discussion I had with Kafuuka regarding the questions if you fancy it.

Z
[/quote]
I've got to admit that I didn't read that entire document, but there are a handful of things in it that I would object to. However, let's just stick with your post for now. As unfortunate as it may be, advances in neuroscience have all but proven consciousness to be entirely chemical/electrical, but you have me interested so I'd like to hear your thoughts on other origins of cognition and how exactly they allow for inanimate objects enslaving sentient beings. It sounds to me, in the first few lines of that document, that you begin talking about aliens forming a false history based on empirical observations. However, their subjective view of our past events does nothing to dictate how those events actually transpired in reality...or how they are currently evolving from our perspective.

[Organised Debate With Z]

[quote name='Yoshi' date='13 October 2009 - 12:49 PM' timestamp='1255452543' post='44576']
What about the... TEETER TOTTER? Yeah that's right, I said it. The teeter totter uses us. They get inside our heads and say, come on, sit on me, bring a friend. Just for it's sick pleasure.
[/quote]

You had a bad experience on a playground as a child, didn't you?

[Organised Debate With Z]

We use objects. We give them meaning and uses within the framework of current or past social paradigms, and without our actions or intentions they would be useless. However, objects also influence social ideology either directly by making certain actions available (eg. the hammer or cotton gin) or indirectly by allowing us to make observations or reach abstract conclusions about reality (eg. the telescope). It's quite impossible for objects to use us literally.

[Forum Alts]

[quote name='Chewett' date='04 October 2009 - 05:46 AM' timestamp='1254649584' post='43660']
At the moment the current idea is to remove the accounts but keep them inactive i believe

But we can also merge the accounts so all posts on both accounts are attributed to one and then the other would be removed, Would perhaps anyone prefer that?
[/quote]

I believe that I would. Wynken was my first character here and has a great deal of posts, but I consider Malaikat to be my main and would like to retain this account.

[Fairness of new voting system]

I think that the voting system was fair. There are likely ways that it can be improved, but that's not my purpose for posting today. The real "problem" that I see with using the democratic process to end quarrels or deliver justice (in a game world) is that it does nothing to change the minds of those who feel victimized. Especially in a vote this close, nearly 50% of the participants will walk away still feeling the situation unresolved, but they must now cope with those emotions as their transgressor has just received a public pardon.

Basically, I don't believe that the vote can resolve issues that are not black and white or that don't have a clear and definite end. In this particular situation, the vote only restored Yrth's kingship. It didn't and could not mend the damage that some of his people feel was caused, so for them the problem not only lingers, but may be intensified.

[[Necrovion] Fiju]

Freedom of speech doesn't exist on a private website. He maintains the freedom to speak however he likes...granted that he exercises that freedom elsewhere.

[Contests Idea For Festival Of Pain]

At first I had thought to organize a Samhain festival in order to give players the opportunity to ward off the evil spirits to be loosed during the Festival of Pain. However, I realized that this in itself is not necessarily a contest, so my thought is also to include MD's first ever Pumpkin Carving contest. Contestants will be required to submit a picture of their jack-o-lantern by placing it in one of their documents (papers). A panel of judges will deliberate to decide the winner(s). Prizes can either be categorized for Most Original, Most Frightening, and Most Comedic or simply, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. depending on the number of prizes to be given and the number of participants.

For anyone interested, or unaccustomed to such cultural traditions:
[quote]
*Information on Samhain and Pumpkin Carving from wiki*

The festival of Samhain is a celebration of the end of the harvest season in Gaelic culture, and is sometimes regarded as the "Celtic New Year". Traditionally, the festival was a time used by the ancient Celtic pagans to take stock of supplies and slaughter livestock for winter stores. The ancient Celts believed that on October 31st, now known as Halloween, the boundary between the living and the deceased dissolved, and the dead become dangerous for the living by causing problems such as sickness or damaged crops. The festivals would frequently involve bonfires, into which the bones of slaughtered livestock were thrown. Costumes and masks being worn at Halloween goes back to the Celtic traditions of attempting to copy the evil spirits or placate them, in Scotland for instance where the dead were impersonated by young men with masked, veiled or blackened faces, dressed in white.

On All Hallows’ eve, the ancient Celts would place a skeleton on their window sill to represent the departed. Originating in Europe, these lanterns were first carved from a turnip or rutabaga. Believing that the head was the most powerful part of the body, containing the spirit and the knowledge, the Celts used the "head" of the vegetable to frighten off the embodiment of superstitions. Welsh, Irish and British myth are full of legends of the Brazen Head, which may be a folk memory of the widespread ancient Celtic practice of headhunting - the results of which were often nailed to a door lintel or brought to the fireside to speak their wisdom. The name jack-o'-lantern can be traced back to the Irish legend of Stingy Jack, a greedy, gambling, hard-drinking old farmer. He tricked the devil into climbing a tree and trapped him by carving a cross into the tree trunk. In revenge, the devil placed a curse on Jack, condemning him to forever wander the earth at night with the only light he had: a candle inside of a hollowed turnip. The carving of pumpkins is associated with Halloween in North America where pumpkins are both readily available and much larger- making them easier to carve than turnips. Many families that celebrate Halloween carve a pumpkin into a frightening or comical face and place it on their doorstep after dark.[/quote]